sarm

Thanks, but we already have everything 3rd party tested, I just wanted everyone here to know we have no issues with our products being tested, Osta Rx or anything else.

Why doesn't IML publish the CoAs on its products? I mean, if you spent the $$ to have it tested, and there are no issues as you say, it doesn't make sense to me to keep that info confidential. Personally, I believe its legit, but it'd be nice to know for sure that that there isn't any other "stuff" in there and that the dose/cap is accurate.

If that is the case then I would agree. But I assume there must be some dose where you are almost to the suppressive stage but not quite there, at which point you might get some anabolic effect to save gains, at least in the first few weeks of pct. I guess you would not agree with that assumption.

you want to believe this is more like it

go ahead and take a small dose of the stuff during PCT if it gives you peace of mind then. I doubt it will hurt you

Why doesn't IML publish the CoAs on its products? I mean, if you spent the $$ to have it tested, and there are no issues as you say, it doesn't make sense to me to keep that info confidential. Personally, I believe its legit, but it'd be nice to know for sure that that there isn't any other "stuff" in there and that the dose/cap is accurate.

Also, why did IML double the price of Osta Rx?

well, yes we easily could do this, but what does it really prove? anyone could forge a COA and post it up and make it look legit. I guess we feel that our reputation and feedback online has a lot more value than a PDF document.

we did not double the price of Osta Rx, we fixed the retail price at $99.99, retailers were not supposed to be selling it for $50.

well, yes we easily could do this, but what does it really prove? anyone could forge a COA and post it up and make it look legit. I guess we feel that our reputation and feedback online has a lot more value than a PDF document.

we did not double the price of Osta Rx, we fixed the retail price at $99.99, retailers were not supposed to be selling it for $50.

you advertised osta-rx on your facebook page and told people to buy from the BDS website.. you guys obviously saw they were selling it for $50.

you advertised osta-rx on your facebook page and told people to buy from the BDS website.. you guys obviously saw they were selling it for $50.

And they had it on their own website initially for 79.99... So I suppose that's only a $20 price increase. But whatever, I guess. For me personally, it's not looking like it'll be worth $79, let alone $99. Maybe for many others it will be. I don't know how the whole retail/distributorships work in the supplement industry, so I can't really comment on what happened with BDS. Like jbry said, they're in it to make money, so more power to 'em if they can sell it at that price.

well, yes we easily could do this, but what does it really prove? anyone could forge a COA and post it up and make it look legit. I guess we feel that our reputation and feedback online has a lot more value than a PDF document.

we did not double the price of Osta Rx, we fixed the retail price at $99.99, retailers were not supposed to be selling it for $50.

Your logic on the COA doesn't resonate with me as a consumer, but that's your call. Once I'm done with my bottle, I'll give you some honest feedback. I really like that IML had the nutz to come out with this product, but I just think it's a reach at that price point.

And they had it on their own website initially for 79.99... So I suppose that's only a $20 price increase. But whatever, I guess. For me personally, it's not looking like it'll be worth $79, let alone $99. Maybe for many others it will be. I don't know how the whole retail/distributorships work in the supplement industry, so I can't really comment on what happened with BDS. Like jbry said, they're in it to make money, so more power to 'em if they can sell it at that price.

Simply replying to the statement that retailers were not supposed to sell at $50. If they weren't supposed to, then why advertise on your own facebook page a place that does?

well, yes we easily could do this, but what does it really prove? anyone could forge a COA and post it up and make it look legit. I guess we feel that our reputation and feedback online has a lot more value than a PDF document.

we did not double the price of Osta Rx, we fixed the retail price at $99.99, retailers were not supposed to be selling it for $50.

funny! this sounds really familiar!! almost like the time you told me that the 30mg dose per serving was a typo!! lol! and that was a blatant lie.

If PA wants to test our Osta Rx for you guys I would be happy to send him a bottle.

Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold

u just need to send some caps but also you need to send 100 bucks

Originally Posted by IronMagLabs

Thanks, but we already have everything 3rd party tested, I just wanted everyone here to know we have no issues with our products being tested, Osta Rx or anything else.

really?? i'd like to see some 3rd party testing thats actually posted! and from a trusted source non the less!

if you were so quick to send Patrick Arnold a bottle - why not just send him the couple caps and "shell out" the hundred bucks (as you put it, while referring to your customers buying osta at the "fixed" rate.

I didn't know you could tell retailers what price to sell your product at. I thought your could suggest a price and then the retailer could choose what to actually sell it for. If IronMagLabs is so sure of the product they are selling, then why not send a few caps to PA for testing. People seem to trust him with this sort of thing and it will go a long way with your potential customers.

Side note: "Price fixing" is generally not allowed, but as previously mentioned you can control who you do business with. The company I work for has a "unilateral pricing policy" and anyone not willing to work within those confines, or who breaks this policy, doesn't get to sell our product. Completely legal. And there are ton of ways around it - "unrelated" total order discounts, or store credit for other products or freebies. whatever.

Side note: I'm not running the SuperDMZ RX yet, although I think I will pull the trigger on it in the next couple of months.

I am running the Osta RX, mainly because I have run mk2866 in the past - from what I believe was a reputable source - and saw significant effects in hardening and muscle sparing during a serious cut. I also had no significant sides during cycle, but had some serious shutdown, even with a two week taper. Clomid kicked everything back into gear, but I was hoping all the "No pct needed" hype was right....but my test levels were in the crapper for awhile. Good news was that I kept most of my muscle, and didn't see any jump in bf% afterward.

I'm only 12 days in on the Osta RX with nothing much to report right now. *shrug* I'm giving it a fair shot though, but definitely getting bloods done after this one too.

*edit* and I got it before the price hike, def. wouldn't have given it a shot @ 99$ when you I can get the other stuff for 49$ more

Side note: "Price fixing" is generally not allowed, but as previously mentioned you can control who you do business with. The company I work for has a "unilateral pricing policy" and anyone not willing to work within those confines, or who breaks this policy, doesn't get to sell our product. Completely legal. And there are ton of ways around it - "unrelated" total order discounts, or store credit for other products or freebies. whatever.

Side note: I'm not running the SuperDMZ RX yet, although I think I will pull the trigger on it in the next couple of months.

I am running the Osta RX, mainly because I have run mk2866 in the past - from what I believe was a reputable source - and saw significant effects in hardening and muscle sparing during a serious cut. I also had no significant sides during cycle, but had some serious shutdown, even with a two week taper. Clomid kicked everything back into gear, but I was hoping all the "No pct needed" hype was right....but my test levels were in the crapper for awhile. Good news was that I kept most of my muscle, and didn't see any jump in bf% afterward.

I'm only 12 days in on the Osta RX with nothing much to report right now. *shrug* I'm giving it a fair shot though, but definitely getting bloods done after this one too.

*edit* and I got it before the price hike, def. wouldn't have given it a shot @ 99$ when you I can get the other stuff for 49$ more

Good review. Interested in those bloods. I have seen bloods from both sides. Some have taken it and had 0 change in test levels while some peoples test levels TANKED. Currently testing MK2866

no anabolic steroid was able to acheive complete selectivety of anabolic from androgenic effects. And likewise, these SARMs (although they can recheive a remarkable degree of selectivity at lower dosages) have not acheived complete selectivity either. In fact I see little evidence that they are superior in this regard to the cleanest of the AAS (primo, anavar, nandrolone)

"In general, SARMs are defined as tissue-selective AR ligands [7]. An ideal SARM should also have (i) high specificity for the AR, (ii) improved oral bioavailability and a pharmacokinetic profile that allows once-a-day administration and, most importantly, (iii) desirable, tissue-selective pharmacological activities. The major discriminating criterion is tissue selectivity of the ligand in vivo, so both agonists and antagonists, and steroidal and non-steroidal ligands might be classified as SARMs. The major goal in the development of SARMs is to avoid the undesirable side-effects of treatment by improving the tissue selectivity of the ligands. This would greatly extend the clinical applications of these ligands beyond primary and secondary hypogonadism. Other potential applications for SARMs include hormone-replacement therapy, osteoporosis, muscle wasting, male contraception, BPH and prostate cancer"

Seems like SARMs would include all androgens with a q-ratio other than 1, and all anti-androgens as well. Ostarine fits the criteria for (ii) quite well since it has good oral bioavailability and a 24hr half-life...as does winstrol. Targeting growth in skeletal muscle while limiting growth in the prostate was the goal of developing lots of anabolics in past decades and seems to be one of the main goals of this new SARM category:

From that first link it sounds like the category "SARM" was invented to include the non-steroidal AR agonists. Of course these can still rightfully be called androgens...

I am wondering why there is some fundamental need for this category to exist. Better for getting funding for research when you say you are studying a receptor modulator instead of an anabolic steroid/androgen?